Paganism

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]AtticoIonian and Koine are different horses, and the rider in both cases should better be careful

I agree. Can I ask, did you get these quotes from the internet? If so, could you provide the link? It is difficult for me to read them transliterated.[/b]

I will offer a last note regarding this matter: Alexandrine Koine Greek is a variation of Attican Koine Greek promoted by king Philippos II as the official language of Macedonia. And Attican Koine Greek is a simplified variation of AtticoIonian. Koine Greek (or metaclassical Greek) is consisting of two branches (Alexandrine and Hellinistic) and starts during the second half of the 4th century BC at the years of Alexander, and it is terminated either in 330AD or during the 6th century AD according to specific criteria respectively. NT is written in Alexandrine Koine Greek.

Our knowledge regarding the Alexandrine Koine Greek is based mainly on the study of the texts of the Bible and of non-philological papyrus. Many aspects of this dialect were used by Polyvios and Diodorus amongst else, and even by the philosopher Epiktitos the Phrygian (Diatrivai 3.26.22), because by that time they were well incorporated in the lingua franca of that era. Finally, Conrau X, you are aware of the fact that in the NT we see also the word “xylon” as a synonymof “stauros” the way it is used in Alexandrine Koine Greek -check Acts 5,30: (…kremasantes epi xylou).

Generally, it is acceptable that some decades after Jesus’ crucifixion “stauros” (Alexandrine Koine Greek) became synonym to the contemporary Latin “crux” (the Roman instrument of death), although the primal meaning/ definition of the Latin “crux” is exactly the same as of the AtticoIonian “stauros” (pole)! But if we accept that this is true, then why the early Christians prefered to use a (+) instead of the real thing, which it is supposed to be a T-shaped cross? Why they decided not to use the T-shape cross as the sign of the crucifixtion of Jesus and as a symbol of the Christian religion whilst in the case of, say, Andrew, they honoured the saint by means of using the X-shaped cross that was used for his crucifixion?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I will offer a last note regarding this matter: Alexandrine Koine Greek is a variation of Attican Koine Greek promoted by king Philippos II as the official language of Macedonia. And Attican Koine Greek is a simplified variation of AtticoIonian. Koine Greek (or metaclassical Greek) is consisting of two branches (Alexandrine and Hellinistic) and starts d ...[text shortened]... y honoured the saint by means of using the X-shaped cross that was used for his crucifixion?
😵

I intend to come back to this a little while later. Some points here require outside study.

Generally, it is acceptable that some decades after Jesus’ crucifixion “stauros” (Alexandrine Koine Greek) became synonym to the contemporary Latin “crux” (the Roman instrument of death), although the primal meaning/ definition of the Latin “crux” is exactly the same as of the AtticoIonian “stauros” (pole)!

Yes, indeed, I have acknowledged this already. Crux and stauros are virtually identical and share the same ambiguity.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what is it about englishathiest.com, not having anything to do with Jehovahs witnesses that you do not understand? Is there no clue as to the wording that perhaps appeals to your imagination? Does not the term atheist mean anything to you? what is yet evading you? Me thinks that a little education in your case could go a long way. No everybody do ...[text shortened]... re made, except the usual ill conceived prejudice that you have picked up from God knows where.

You know what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by josephw
You know what I'm talking about.

all i know is that you are talking mince, AGAIN!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
all i know is that you are talking mince, AGAIN!

That's what happens when an ordinary Christian like myself trys to talk to a JW.

Since your theology is fundamentally flawed it is no wonder you have difficulty understanding.

Oh, and don't take that as an insult. And while you're at it why don't you use proper English grammar. You might find it easier to understand your own writing if you do.

Just a little sarcasm. Please don't be offended.

Originally posted by josephw
That's what happens when an ordinary Christian like myself trys to talk to a JW.

Since your theology is fundamentally flawed it is no wonder you have difficulty understanding.

Oh, and don't take that as an insult. And while you're at it why don't you use proper English grammar. You might find it easier to understand your own writing if you do.

Just a little sarcasm. Please don't be offended.

and still talking even more mince! i really have no idea what you are talking about, really, if you have a point to make then make it, but I have no time for nothingness.

Originally posted by josephw
That's what happens when an ordinary Christian like myself trys to talk to a JW.

Since your theology is fundamentally flawed it is no wonder you have difficulty understanding.

Oh, and don't take that as an insult. And while you're at it why don't you use proper English grammar. You might find it easier to understand your own writing if you do.

Just a little sarcasm. Please don't be offended.

You would consider yourself an "ordinary Christian"? How so?